memory_betafandomcom-20200223-history
Talk:USS Voyager personnel roster
A question Could someone tell me why this page has been reverted? It costed me hours of work. -- User:Briet 11:28, December 05, 2014 (UTC) :I tried to sort it last night and will have to come back to it later. There is a disruptive user who seems to either have crossed your edit conflict or simply reverted it out of maliciousness. This person tends to make up their own styles and not explain their unusual actions, so I was really wondering this too, but from an administrative standpoint, cleaning up this person's mistakes is also hours of work so i will have to swing back this weekend. All your edits are in the article history and appropriate edits will be saved of course. I'd suggest putting an notice on the page the next time you put hours of work into it -- this way, thoughtful users will see to avoid the edit conflict (and thoughtless users can be blocked for crossing your notice. -- Captain MKB 11:44, December 5, 2014 (UTC) Attention This is turning into nonsense very quickly. A lot of people are enjoying the visual format of the roster articles, but there are a lot of issues of simple wiki conduct that are being ignored ;Wiki simplicity : naming conventions specify simple links. Don't add disambiguants for articles that don't need them. There's no other ships named Voyager with rosters so there's no need to add (NCC-74656) to the article name. Likewise, Marvin Rush is a dead link on the wiki stemming from here, but we link to the Marvin Rush (Lieutenant) article? Could someone explain why this is being done? It's a problem ;Too much data : are we specifyiing dates of rank? Is this why we had a Marvin Rush (Lieutenant) and Marvin Rush (Lieutenant Commander) as two links? We don't really want to create a separate article just because the crewmember was promoted or demoted. A better example is Chakotay, he is listed as Captain from 2371 to 2380s. Is there a problem with this article structure if we cant find a simple way to explain that he was first officer in 2371 and captain in 2381? ;Date accuracy. : Why "circa 2371"? Nobody joined the crew in 2370, or 2372, or even 2373. Why do we need to say "circa"? it was DEFINITELY 2371. ;Date accuracy also : Stop being frigging babies and reverting each others' edits. if there is a continuing disagreement about whether something happened in 2377 or 2378, for the Great Bird's sake, use this talk page to ask about the change, use the source column to explain it. ;Date accuracy also also : Please don't put "2371-????" or anything like that. it makes the wiki look really stupid. If you dont know an end date, put "from 2371" and be done with it ;Sources : Please put sources. This article has hundreds of red links and you people need to give us some clues how to fill them in. it's called citing sources, it's something we do here on the wiki. -- Captain MKB 12:40, December 5, 2014 (UTC) 2377 Voyager returned to the Alpha Quadrant in 2377 not 2378. It says so on the 2377 page: Stardate 54973.4: The returns to the Alpha Quadrant. Voyager returns home via a Borg transwarp conduit, destroying a Borg transwarp hub in the process. It says 2377 for Voyager's return on all the crew pages and the USS Voyager page, 2378 is wrong. We are not Memory Alpha, that site says 2378. I'm sorry, I should have used the talk page to talk about this. The 2378 page does not have this data, because 2377 is right and 2378 is wrong.--Typhuss999 (talk) 15:09, December 5, 2014 (UTC)